4 ms·

>Adderall is a stimulant with the effects Huxley predicted. That's exactly my point: it is NOT. Not for the people Adderall is prescribed to and was developed

by alterom 11mo ago

>Adderall is a stimulant with the effects Huxley predicted. That's exactly my point: it is NOT. Not for the people Adderall is prescribed to and was developed for. See: https://romankogan.net/adhd#Medication https://romankogan.net/adhd#Medication >I don't believe this is specifically about ADHD. There's nothing to believe in here. Adderall is a drug that's specifically about ADHD. It's a stimulant that helps people with ADHD overcome executive dysfunction: https://romankogan.net/adhd/#Executive%20Dysfunction https://romankogan.net/adhd/#Executive%20Dysfunction You can't talk about Adderall without talking about ADHD just like you can't talk about allergy pills without talking about allergies, or talk about eyeglasses without talking about myopia. > It also happens to treat ADHD NO. Please reconsider sharing this sentiment. Adderall is a drug for treating ADHD that also happens to be abused by people thinking it'll have the "effects Huxley predicted" (enhancing thinking efficiency). It does not; that's the reason why it's a controlled substance. When abused, it will wreck your brain. As an analogy: glasses make people with myopia see better, but wearing glasses without prescription is a very bad idea. >I believe it's being used here in the former capacity. I understand this, and it's a misconception I'm trying to dispel. With evidence and scientific understanding, mind you, and not just with vibes about thinking what Adderall is. Speaking of which, I forgot to take it, which means I'm about to have my breakfast at 5PM because I couldn't bring myself to do the eating task earlier. This is what Adderall is for. >The title is perhaps a bit unfortunate. The title is repeated verbatim in the article, whose author has kindly replied in this thread and re-stated it twice (as did you), as if I weren't directly addressing the fallacious point that the author employed to attract attention to Huxley's lecture (which doesn't need such advertising in the first place). It's not the title that's a bit unfortunate. It's the mention of Adderall, and the myth that it's a "brain-enhancing" drug. If it were, it'd be given to everyone already, and perhaps there'd be fewer people spreading vibe-based falsities in post titles, but I digress. The point is: ============== Adderall does NOT enhance mental efficiency, as Huxley's fantasized drug would. Adderall HELPS people with ADHD overcome EXECUTIVE DYSFUNCTION. That's what it's for. That's what it DOES. If you take it for ANYTHING ELSE, you will NOT get the intended result, and you will likely FUCK YOURSELF UP. Spreading the MISCONCEPTION that Adderall is a "brain-enhancing” drug (as the author opined in the comments here) drives the ABUSE of this medication, which HARMS people and makes ADHD harder to obtain for people who NEED it to function. ======== I hope I've succeeded in bringing your attention to this issue. If this hasn't changed your point of view, please let me know what else I can elaborate on. Thank you <3

itishappy 11mo ago
> You can't talk about Adderall without talking about ADHD... Huxley never mentions Adderall, and neither Huxley nor the article mention ADHD. I'm not trying to argue with your points about how Adderall relates to ADHD. I agree! I empathize! I'm arguing that this is not about how Adderall relates to ADHD. I don't think our experience is the intended context. The talk is mostly about tailoring learning to the individual. I think you'd find it's points quite agreeable! > you will likely FUCK YOURSELF UP. To be fair, there's evidence it does the same to us.
- alterom 11mo ago
  > I'm arguing that this is not about how Adderall relates to ADHD. I don't think our experience is the intended context. Then whose experience is the "intended" context? > To be fair, there's evidence it does the same to us. Same for every prescription medication out there. This is why they require a prescription. This is why spreading the idea that Adderall is a pill that will boost your "mental efficiency" WITHOUT ADVERSE CONSEQUENCES, as Huxley said in his talk, is harmful and dangerous. Adderall is very much known to not be that kind of stimulant. Of course, same applies for e.g. nicotine. But we also know the outcome of nicotine being touted as a consequence-free stimulant. The fact that one is widely available to anyone over 18 no questions asked, while the other requires a thousand hoops and a costly diagnosis is, of course, a bizarre travesty... ...which is only exacerbated by people promoting the abuse of this medication, as the author of the piece does (by saying that it is anywhere close to Huxley's utopian drug at population scale).
walletdrainer 11mo ago
> was developed for. For… weight loss? Adderall was developed as a diet pill. It was never modified in any way to better suit ADHD treatment.
- alterom 11mo ago
  Figuring out what the drug is actually effective for, doing the lab trials, getting the FDA approval, etc is all part of R&D in the pharmaceutical industry. A rather costly part, at that. There's a heckton of it that needs to be done before doctors can prescribe drug X for condition Y. Adderall was developed for helping ADHD folks, not for helping everyone else get a boost of "mental efficiency" (and particularly, without adverse consequences). Not in the least because it doesn't do that.

by alterom 11mo ago

itishappy 11mo ago

> You can't talk about Adderall without talking about ADHD... Huxley never mentions Adderall, and neither Huxley nor the article mention ADHD. I'm not trying to argue with your points about how Adderall relates to ADHD. I agree! I empathize! I'm arguing that this is not about how Adderall relates to ADHD. I don't think our experience is the intended context. The talk is mostly about tailoring learning to the individual. I think you'd find it's points quite agreeable! > you will likely FUCK YOURSELF UP. To be fair, there's evidence it does the same to us.

alterom 11mo ago
> I'm arguing that this is not about how Adderall relates to ADHD. I don't think our experience is the intended context. Then whose experience is the "intended" context? > To be fair, there's evidence it does the same to us. Same for every prescription medication out there. This is why they require a prescription. This is why spreading the idea that Adderall is a pill that will boost your "mental efficiency" WITHOUT ADVERSE CONSEQUENCES, as Huxley said in his talk, is harmful and dangerous. Adderall is very much known to not be that kind of stimulant. Of course, same applies for e.g. nicotine. But we also know the outcome of nicotine being touted as a consequence-free stimulant. The fact that one is widely available to anyone over 18 no questions asked, while the other requires a thousand hoops and a costly diagnosis is, of course, a bizarre travesty... ...which is only exacerbated by people promoting the abuse of this medication, as the author of the piece does (by saying that it is anywhere close to Huxley's utopian drug at population scale).

walletdrainer 11mo ago

> was developed for. For… weight loss? Adderall was developed as a diet pill. It was never modified in any way to better suit ADHD treatment.

alterom 11mo ago
Figuring out what the drug is actually effective for, doing the lab trials, getting the FDA approval, etc is all part of R&D in the pharmaceutical industry. A rather costly part, at that. There's a heckton of it that needs to be done before doctors can prescribe drug X for condition Y. Adderall was developed for helping ADHD folks, not for helping everyone else get a boost of "mental efficiency" (and particularly, without adverse consequences). Not in the least because it doesn't do that.